Politicians — Use New Media at Your Own Risk
Conservatives in the U.S. are busy preaching as to how to harness new media to their benefit. By doing so, they hope to successfully reproduce Barack Obama’s online success and real-life political victory.
It is undeniably true that the RNC and the entire Republican Party got completely outclassed by the left in the last election cycle, with the possible exception of the paleo-conservative right of Ron Paul followers, who did fairly well online even if they weren’t completely successful in getting their message across. But in the mad desperate rush to new media, caution can be thrown to the wind with problematic consequences. There is a lack of control and understanding of the dangers and benefits of social media for all who embark on that road.
One such tale of warning comes to us from across the pond, here in the UK, at the expense of David Cameron’s poll-slipping Conservative Party.
Cameron and his crew did quite a bit to push youth to the front during his leadership. In fact, in one constituency, the Conservative Party has named a 19-year-old as their candidate in a seat that should swing to the party. In the last few days they are discovering that one has to be careful who one promotes, whatever their age. This is even more so the case with the advent of social media and the thinning line between one’s public and private identities.
The scandal occurred when leading Conservative Future member and former Conservative Future chairman for Staffordshire, Matt Lewis, went to a rather twisted costume party dressed as the missing toddler Madeline McCann. Some of his friends dressed as “true crime” victims, including the tragically killed Baby P. These young adults obviously demonstrated bad taste in the selection of their costumes for the party.
Republicans lost badly because they ignored issues regarding individual liberty and abandoned conservatism in favour of a religious oriented parody of it. The only good candidate that they had was Dr. Paul but the party and its pundits in the media did all that they could to marginalize the message. Had the party allowed the message to get out the results of the elections could have been very different.
There were several steps and several hours in this process. It wasn’t a moment of poor judgment. One either has common sense or one doesn’t. The new media doesn’t really change that, it just magnifies the embarrassment of those who don’t.
Tim, that is a very good point. However any one of those steps could be rather unfortunate in this day and age.
As I understand it, Ron Paul is a lunatic fringe libertarian (and a crank in many other directions), not a conservative. THe more marginalized, the better as far as this conservative is concerned.
And you might want to revise the adjective ‘poll-slipping,’ Andrew. The great British public appears to have woken up to the bogusness of Broon’s claim to have saved the world.
Chris I have yet to be convinced how Paul is actually “a libertarian”…a paleocon maybe but some of his ideas are far from libertarian.
Oddly enough when Obama’s speech writer grabbed a certain portion of a Hilary cutout’s antomy and then posted the picture the fuss was gone in a day or so. Why is that?
Overall the “new media” is an unforgiving terrain and the unwise will fall hard and fast. Unless they belong to a group that is somehow subject to lesser expectations (see Irael vs Hamas).
Chris-
I agree that Dr. Paul is definitely libertarian-leaning (he’s a student of the Austrian school of economics), but much of the “lunatic” image is because he truly believes in small government. If you compare Dr. Paul to ANY of the major political players nowadays, of course he looks like a crazy libertarian kook. But who is really crazy- the guy that says “Hey, we should be spending less money on our wasteful, debt-riddled government” or the mob that keeps snapping the heels of the taxpayer screaming “GIVE US MORE MONEY!”
From a friend who does not want to be named.
You are right. New media is a double-edged sword. The greater danger, however, comes from the anonymity that new media allows such as the site attacking others.
On the Paul front. His ideas on things like Israel are not very libertarian. He does not seem to believe that Israel has the right to defend itself against aggression. His ranting about “international bankers” has an unfortunate ring to it as well. Many “Paulians” are out & out anti-semites. (Hence one who told an online friend of mine “shut up about Ron Paul. you ****ing Jew” on Twitter. I have gotten several comments and emails to that affect from Paulians as well.)
Domestically most of what Paul has to say is quite good.
The problem is not that some 19-year-old did some poor-taste hijink. The problem is that older, supposedly-wiser heads didn’t recognize it as such. The media spins it, and the public accepts their judgment, because they’re sheeple. It’s the electorate who is foolish, not the 19-year-old.
If course, it was foolish of the Party to designate someon so young as a candidate. Foolishness abounds.
The US is about to get a dose of what Australia submitted to in the 70′s, socialism. I’m sorry America but you’re about to lose the country you know and love and it can’t be undone now. In that way Obama is the anti-Lincoln and you’re about to join the Euroweenie club. I really feel for you and think it’s tragic that over the years your whole education system to be hyjacked by radicals. Same thing happened here but I thought you’d have been wiser, not so.
I’m not Zach btw. Sorry zach.
Zack I am a bit bummed that the cluster**** that is the UK right now was not a big enough clue that socialism is the wrong route to head down. Its as if Carter was not bad enough. I think both the moderate left and the sensible right are going to be nostalgic about Clinton. His moral foibles aside I am sure he was a far better President than the Obama will be.
Spot on, Vangel.
As to Dr. Ron Paul, yes, his domestic stuff is decent. He does have a doctorate in economics, y’know. He’d make a great Fed Chairman.
He’s registered as a Republican, despite his libertarian beliefs.
I don’t believe he’s anti-semitic. He believes in weak federal government. That means no foreign intervention. (It’s grossly unrealistic. The world has become too small for us to be able to hide behind our moat, anymore.)
Disclaimer: My information about him is uncertain, as I’ve only learned about him in passing and never took him seriously.
I’ve seen people post (on other sites) that Ron Paul is: anti Bush, anti Iraq war, anti Patriot Act and a 9/11 conspiracy theorist in the Rosie O’Donnell mold.
Is any of this true or just propaganda?